[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335452976.13683.88.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:09:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 3/4] rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ account
for pauses out of idle
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 07:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > per_cpu(rcu_dyntick.first_pass, cpu) = 0;
> I must confess that I had no idea that you could say the above. I would
> have expected to have to say the following:
>
> per_cpu(rcu_dyntick, cpu).first_pass = 0;
They both work and are afaik identical. The first takes the per-cpu
address of rcu_dyntick and adds the offset of first_pass, then
transforms the per-cpu address to a linear address. The second
transforms the per-cpu address of rcu_dyntick, transforms it to a linear
address and then adds the offset of first_pass, IOW:
(&rcu_dyntick + offset) + per_cpu_offset ==
(&rcu_dyntick + per_cpu_offset) + offset
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists